Do you have an example where they disagreed upon Amendment 7 and adhering to "the rules of the common law", the most fundamental rule being to adhere to legislative intent?

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.

Comeon now, you know how this game gets played out. Happens every time. You ask a question, the person responds by not answering a question, but simply repeats the same previous question repetitively no matter how many times its answered. Why would you even subject yourself to that nonsense?

Haywood Stirling Gilliam Jr. (born October 13, 1969) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Gilliam was born in 1969, in Marlborough, Massachusetts. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree, magna cum laude, in 1991, from Yale University. He received a Juris Doctor in 1994 from Stanford Law School. He served as a law clerk to Judge Thelton Henderson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, fr...

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California (in case citations, N.D. Cal.) is the federal United States district court whose jurisdiction comprises following counties of California: Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma. The court hears cases in its courtrooms in Eureka, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. It is headquartered in San Francisco.

What I find to be ironic is how this has all turned out over the years.

Currently Pelosi is holding the house hostage. She is but one of 435 house members, representing what arguably is one of the most radical LW districts in America.

So, rather than a representation of 435 different districts - congress is basically beholden to a single congress woman representing a microcosm of this country.

I fully understand the role of the speaker, but I honestly believe the framers would be aghast at how their original vision has played out over the years.

I’m searching in vain for your outraged posts about McConnell holding 99 other Senators AND the president AND the Supreme Court hostage with the Garland nomination.

ETA: She’s using the power of her position to influence policy, just as Ryan and every Speaker has. Whereas McConnell abrogated his Constitutionally MANDATED duty to advise and consent for almost a year. Spare us your pearl-clutching.

As I suggested, why not ask the border agents directy? Why doesn’t the speaker of the house go down to the border herself and talk directly to the agents? We both know why, you’re just to partisan to admit it: because Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer know that the border agents would tell them to build the wall because they work! No way Nancy and Chuckie would EVER be seen on camera being told that by the agents. Their plausible deniability would be shot and their brain dead followers would die of sudden reality shock…

Sounds like Nancy relies on the House members that are in those districts and those district members rely on their constituents. Constituents being the people that LIVE there… Apparently those people dont want Trump’s wall. Do those residents have an opposing view to your border agents?

The border agents I know, want more money for agents and technology at the ports of entry.

Total crap. The congressman are partisans more concerned with serving Pelosi than the public. Don’t misunderstand and think I am only accusing Democrats of partisan politics. Anymore that’s all we get out of DC from both sides, admit it…

If the majority of agents and the people who lived on the border did not want the wall, Nancy Pelosi would be down there holding news conferences and interviewing them on camera just to rub it in Trump’s face. THAT would stop Trump and cost him the 2020 election. She knows very well the wall is exactly what us wanted and needed and Trump will win in 2020 if he gets it built. THAT is why almost 100% of Democrats in Congress are not supporting it, even when most did when Obama was in office.

You don’t seem to realize, as you’re apparently an addict / victim of right-wing opinion media, that the Trump “wall” is nothing more than a stupid campaign promise, and not an actual well thought out, well vetted idea, much less a plan.

The bolded is factually incorrect, and you don’t know it because you listen to the right-wing liars, and believe. Dig in to the facts, and you’ll learn something: there was never support for Trump’s The Wall - only for strategically placed barriers, as have been funded by Congress, and implemented. Allow me to suggest that you’ll be more comfortable dealing in facts and reality.

Maybe you should watch FOX news sometime. If you did, you would see the videos of the top Democrats in the party - Obama, Clinton, Pelosi and Schumer, and many others, supporting a barrier and all the other aspects of our illegal immigration problem. You would here them use the term “illegal” and refer to all the problems associated with illegal immigration. The crime, job loss, lack of taxes paid and the strain put on local government resources, hospitals and schools.

ALL of these issues have been talked about and agreed upon for decades and the result is still an estimated 20 million people here illegally. How much more vetting us necessary to get our elected officials to do what they were elected to do? It’s been nothing but empty talk with no political will to back it up- until now.

The wall is a part- but a big part, of dealing with the problem. Not the whole answer, but a good start. Stop the flow to the greatest extent possible, make it clear to the world our borders are closed for business, THEN begin dealing with those already here. What is so objectionable about common sense other than WHO is finally trying to enact it?

As I suggested, why not ask the border agents directy? Why doesn’t the speaker of the house go down to the border herself and talk directly to the agents? We both know why, you’re just to partisan to admit it: because Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer know that the border agents would tell them to build the wall because they work! No way Nancy and Chuckie would EVER be seen on camera being told that by the agents. Their plausible deniability would be shot and their brain dead followers would die of sudden reality shock…

Sounds like Nancy relies on the House members that are in those districts and those district members rely on their constituents. Constituents being the people that LIVE there… Apparently those people dont want Trump’s wall. Do those residents have an opposing view to your border agents?

The border agents I know, want more money for agents and technology at the ports of entry.

Total crap. The congressman are partisans more concerned with serving Pelosi than the public. Don’t misunderstand and think I am only accusing Democrats of partisan politics. Anymore that’s all we get out of DC from both sides, admit it…

If the majority of agents and the people who lived on the border did not want the wall, Nancy Pelosi would be down there holding news conferences and interviewing them on camera just to rub it in Trump’s face. THAT would stop Trump and cost him the 2020 election. She knows very well the wall is exactly what us wanted and needed and Trump will win in 2020 if he gets it built. THAT is why almost 100% of Democrats in Congress are not supporting it, even when most did when Obama was in office.

You don’t seem to realize, as you’re apparently an addict / victim of right-wing opinion media, that the Trump “wall” is nothing more than a stupid campaign promise, and not an actual well thought out, well vetted idea, much less a plan.

The bolded is factually incorrect, and you don’t know it because you listen to the right-wing liars, and believe. Dig in to the facts, and you’ll learn something: there was never support for Trump’s The Wall - only for strategically placed barriers, as have been funded by Congress, and implemented. Allow me to suggest that you’ll be more comfortable dealing in facts and reality.

BTW, you guys all seem to pick one point out of entire posts and ignore every other point made because you disagree with that point. Why is that?

BTW, you guys all seem to pick one point out of entire posts and ignore every other point made because you disagree with that point. Why is that?

You actually didn’t have any points, only an untruth, that The Wall was ever supported. You’re conflating support for strategic fencing with support for Trump’s desired monument to stupidity. I responded to that. You got anything else?

Textualism seeks to have the Constitution and laws read as plain English. Their meaning is determined by the words.

Intentionalism, on the other hand, seeks to have the Constitution and laws interpreted as the aurhors intended.

I disagree on a philosophical level with textualism, but I respect it as a real position. Intentionalism is nonsense.

Scalia was a textualist. Thomas is an intentionalist.

Labels are not only irrelevant with respect to constitutional construction, they are a clever distraction from focusing on what our Constitution means.

The bottom line is, when a dispute arises as to the meaning of the text of our Constitution, its meaning is to be discovered and documented by researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified which sheds light on the purpose for which the provision was adopted.

To put this into different words, we need only to read Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), in which our Supreme Court notes the following:

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."

Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Textualism seeks to have the Constitution and laws read as plain English. Their meaning is determined by the words.

Intentionalism, on the other hand, seeks to have the Constitution and laws interpreted as the aurhors intended.

I disagree on a philosophical level with textualism, but I respect it as a real position. Intentionalism is nonsense.

Scalia was a textualist. Thomas is an intentionalist.

Labels are not only irrelevant with respect to constitutional construction, they are a clever distraction from focusing on what our Constitution means.

The bottom line is, when a dispute arises as to the meaning of the text of our Constitution, its meaning is to be discovered and documented by researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified which sheds light on the purpose for which the provision was adopted.

To put this into different words, we need only to read Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), in which our Supreme Court notes the following:

”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."

Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Good gravy these people really are idiots. Did they seriously not examine all of this before making their decision to declare an emergency and try to steal funds already appropriated elsewhere? Or is this proof that the people Trump tasked with to fulfill his goal of circumventing the Constitution to satisfy a campaign promise know already it was never going to happen, so they just half-assed it?

BREAKING: More than a third of the federal 💰@realDonaldTrump wants to redirect to build a #BorderWall is not available. It’s been spent. Congress—including Dems—would have to approve making new 💰 available. That’s not happening. Time for a Plan B. https://t.co/aSZ1LksdPY

I bet there are people in this administration who would like to do good jobs and not look so incompetent. Trump offers little help in that regard.

It is quite pathetic that anyone who would seek to be a part of a quality administration would still be hanging around this one. We all know what Trump is, and his ignorance and incompetence are unparalleled.

Seems even when he has good people around him he does his best to avoid their counsel until he finally fires them.

While Trump complains about some mythical ‘deep state’ out to get him, I suspect it’s the deep state (career bureaucrats) that keeps the overall government functioning while Trump and his bevy of ‘acting’ administrators attempt to get up to speed before they’re replaced over some ethical violation.